BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT for Canada Lynx Grizzly Bear

Home , Canada lynx, Centennial Mountains, Central Idaho, Grizzly bear, Henrys Lake Mountains

BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT

for

Canada Lynx Grizzly Bear Wolverine

Otis Gold Corporation Plan of Operations for the Kilgore Project

Dubois Ranger District Caribou-Targhee National Forest

Clark County, Idaho

Prepared by:

__/s/_S. Derusseau______March 15, 2018 Dubois and Ashton-Island Park Districts Wildlife Biologist Date SUMMARY

Species Status Determination Canada lynx Threatened May affect, not likely to adversely affect (NLAA) (Lynx canadensis) Grizzly bear Threatened May affect, not likely to adversely affect (NLAA) (Ursus arctos) Wolverine Proposed Not likely to jeopardize the continued existence (Gulo gulo) Threatened (NLJCE) or NLAA

INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this biological assessment (BA) is to analyze the effects of the proposed action on endangered, threatened, and proposed species. Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act directs federal agencies to ensure actions authorized, funded, or carried out are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of endangered or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of habitat of such species. This project was streamlined on March 14, 2018.

PROJECT

The project is occurring on the Dubois Ranger District of the Caribou-Targhee National Forest in Clark County near Kilgore, Idaho. The legal description is Township 12 North, Range 38 East, Section 6; Township 13 North, Range 37 East, Section 25; and Township 13 North, Range 38 East, Sections 8, 16 to 21, and 27 to 33 (see attached maps). This project would last up to five years (2018 to 2022) and occur from July 15 through early November.

Otis Gold Corporation would conduct exploration drilling on up to 140 drill sites on its claim in the Gold Ridge, Prospect Ridge, Dog Bone, and Mine Ridge areas. The purpose of the exploration drilling is to evaluate the gold potential. Project activities consist of Otis Gold Corporation’s plan of operations dated September 2017 and include existing road use, new road construction, and exploration drilling within the road prisms.

Otis Gold estimates that there are 21.5 miles of roads that will be used for the project. Approximately 2.3 miles of roads are existing and will require no maintenance. Approximately 12.1 miles of roads will require some maintenance, which may include removing downed timber, brushing, and blading. Approximately 7.0 miles of roads would be constructed. Gates would restrict public access.

Motorized equipment to be used for project activities include five drill rigs, a fork lift, ATVs, pick-up trucks, a water truck, a fuel truck, and water pumps. Equipment would be power-washed for noxious weeds prior to use on the claim. There would be two to six pick-ups in operation per day and a water truck as necessary. There would be at least three drill rigs in operation at one time. All 140 drill sites are within the existing or proposed road prism. Sites may vary within 50 feet of proposed locations. Which sites are drilled depends on the results of each assay. Each drill site will have a maximum of three holes with an average depth of 1300 feet. Drill sites will have a sump to collect drilling wastewater. Each drill hole would be plugged in accordance with state regulations after drilling.

Drill sites would operate 24 hours per day. Lighting would be necessary at night. There may be up to three drills operating at one time. Generally, a drill operates at a site for one to two weeks before being moved to the next site.

Water may be collected from three sources. These include an existing well, West Camas Creek at the road crossing, and Corral Creek. The state has allowed Otis Gold to take five acre-feet per year at a rate of 18 gallons per minute from each water source. Water from all sources would be placed in storage tanks and piped to drill sites.

There would be five to ten personnel on site each day. Personnel would camp on the claim in RV trailers. Camps would be required to follow the food storage order for grizzly bears.

All fuels and lubricants greater than five gallons would be stored within a spill containment system. In addition, spill kits and fire prevention tools will be present on-site. Water quality monitoring will occur.

New roads and those with active exploration would be reclaimed when Otis Gold determines that no further exploration is warranted. If vegetation has established, roads would be reclaimed with repairs, seed application, and slash and woody debris placement. If vegetation has not established, roads would be reclaimed with contouring, soil placement, slash and woody debris placement, and seeding.

Exploration drilling activity has occurred in the Mine Ridge area of the claim during most years from 2008 to 2017. In 2017, 34 sites were drilled and some of these sites were accessed by helicopter. In 2016, 36 sites were drilled, all in the road prism. In 2014, 16 sites were drilled with less than one mile of road construction.

SPECIES CONSIDERED AND EVALUATED

A species list was requested from the IPAC website (https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/) on November 3, 2017. Canada lynx, grizzly bear, and wolverine were on the list (01EIFW00-2017-SLI-0934). There is no critical habitat present in the project area.

CANADA LYNX

Life History

The lynx diet is predominantly snowshoe hare in both summer and winter. For example, 96 percent of the lynx diet in Montana is snowshoe hare (less than two percent red squirrel) and 81 percent of the lynx diet in Washington is snowshoe hare (14 percent red squirrel) (ILBT 2013). The minimum threshold density of snowshoe hares for lynx has been estimated at greater than 0.5 hares per hectare to greater than 1.5 hares per hectare (ILBT 2013).

Lynx habitat is characterized by dense, horizontal cover; moderate to high snowshoe hare densities, and persistent snow (ILBT 2013). Lynx habitat vegetation includes mature mesic spruce-fir, multi-layered mature lodgepole pine, and regenerating lodgepole pine (Ellsworth and Reynolds 2006; Maletzke et al. 2008, Shenk 2009, Squires et al. 2006), but the main lynx vegetation type in the western United States is spruce-fir forests (ILBT 2013). Preferred regenerating lodgepole pine stands are sapling stage (10 to 30 years in age), un-pruned, and comprised of 4500 to 33,000 stems per acre (Ellsworth and Reynolds 2006).

Lynx dispersal is relatively commonplace: Lynx from Canada may disperse southward when the snowshoe hare population cycle is at a low; these Canadian dispersers may be the most reliable source of replenishment for Canada lynx populations in the contiguous U.S. (USFWS 2014).

Also, sub-adult lynx disperse at ten months of age prior to the next mating period. Dispersal distances vary from five to 269 kilometers, with a median of 13 kilometers. Further, adults exhibit long-range exploratory movements (Squires et al. 2006). The duration of these movements is one week to several months (Ruediger et al. 2000). Documented movement distances have been as much as 1000 kilometers (Squires and Oakleaf 2005). For example, lynx from Colorado have traveled to eleven states; these are Arizona, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, South Dakota, Utah, and Wyoming (Shenk 2009). Habitats used by lynx during movements and dispersal are not well understood (USFWS 2005).

Lynx may prefer to move through continuous forest, using geographic features such as ridges, saddles, and riparian areas (USDA 2007), but lynx have been documented in sagebrush steppe outside of home ranges (Ruediger et al. 2000). Dispersing lynx may be affected by highways, especially those with high traffic volumes. Causes of mortality of dispersing lynx include illegal shooting, vehicle collisions, and starvation (ILBT 2013).

Affected Environment - Population Status

The Dubois Ranger District is in a secondary lynx area. Secondary lynx areas are defined by sporadic current and historic records of lynx, overall low relative abundance, and no documentation of reproduction. Secondary lynx areas are hypothesized to be important for dispersal of lynx or provide habitat until the animal(s) return to core or primary areas. The lynx recovery outline objective related to secondary lynx areas is to maintain habitat for occupancy by lynx (USFWS 2005).

There is no evidence that lynx are present on the Dubois Ranger District. During 1999-2003, the northeastern portion of the district in the Centennial Mountains was surveyed as part of the National Lynx Detection Survey. There were seven survey stations and there were no lynx detections. Lynx from the Colorado lynx project traveled to eleven states, including Idaho (Shenk 2009). These animals were radio-collared and none of them traveled through the Dubois District. From 1874 to present, there have been no reliable observations of Canada lynx on the Dubois District.

The Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem (GYE) has a long history of lynx presence, but that presence may or may not be consistent. There may be a small resident population of 10 individuals or less in the GYE. Residency of both males and females or reproduction have been documented east of Yellowstone Lake in Yellowstone National Park and the Wyoming Range on the Bridger-Teton National Forest (Bell et al. 2016). There is no evidence of a persistent lynx population on the Caribou-Targhee National Forest.

Affected Environment - Habitat Status

On June 6, 2012, the federal judge of the District Court of Idaho ruled that an EIS needed to be completed for a lynx analysis unit (LAU) map on the Targhee National Forest. Thus, the forest created a new LAU map with lynx linkage habitat in 2013 based on the 2007 Northern Rockies Lynx Management Direction (NRLMD) and completed a draft environmental impact statement (EIS) in 2015. The final EIS is in preparation. Until the final EIS is complete, LAUs are not identified and lynx habitat is determined using the definition in the NRLMD (USDA 2007).

Lynx habitat is composed of primary and secondary vegetation. Primary lynx vegetation is defined as subalpine fir habitat types, even if the dominant cover is of Douglas-fir or lodgepole pine. However, there are subalpine fir habitat types which are not considered primary lynx vegetation because the result is a lodgepole pine climax seral stage; these are subalpine fir with a grouse whortleberry or pine grass understory. Secondary lynx vegetation includes other cool, moist habitat types of Douglas fir, when within 200 meters of primary vegetation. Together, primary and secondary vegetation are considered lynx habitat. Dry forest habitat types of Douglas fir or lodgepole pine do not appear to be associated with lynx and so are not included as lynx habitat (USDA 2007). Areas that do not contain lynx habitat are considered lynx linkage areas.

The Targhee National Forest Ecological Unit Inventory and model (USDA 1999) was used to determine habitat types in the areas of proposed road construction for the Kilgore Project. In lynx habitat types, there were 4.8 miles of proposed road construction. In lynx linkage habitat types, there were 2.4 miles of proposed road construction. Road widths would be 12 feet, so seven acres of lynx habitat types would be removed by proposed road construction and four acres of lynx linkage habitat types would be removed by proposed road construction.

Lynx presence is likely limited by the patchy distribution of high-quality habitat and the low or marginal hare densities in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem (Bell et al. 2016). For example, surveys of hare density in Yellowstone National Park demonstrated that snowshoe hares were rare and patchily distributed with 36 percent of stands having no hares and only four percent of stands having greater than 0.5 hares per hectare (Hodges et al. 2009). Given the protected status of much of the ecosystem (Yellowstone and Grand Teton National Parks, several wildernesses including the Jedediah Smith Wilderness Area on the Caribou-Targhee National Forest) and the current inability of this area to support lynx suggests that this is indeed the case (Bell et al. 2016).

Direct and Indirect Effects

The direct and indirect effects action area is an area that includes all of the existing and proposed roads for access to and used for exploration drilling. The area also includes all of the forest between this system of roads. This area is approximately 4000 acres (six square miles). This may represent the habitat for lynx that is affected by vegetation removal or human disturbance.

It is possible, although unlikely, that a lynx on a dispersal or long-distance exploratory movement would be disturbed by project activities. Project activities include multiple sources of motorized vehicle noise and vehicle travel, both day and night, in an approximate six square-mile area, during July 15 to early November, over a five-year period. There is no evidence that a lynx has ever been present on the Dubois District. However, there was a lynx sighting or trapping by a Wildlife Services trapper in the Medicine Lodge Basin on BLM land south of the district boundary in 1998. But, there is considerable alternate habitat for lynx movements on the district outside of the project area, including the Centennial Mountains corridor (about 60 square miles). Thus, disturbance to lynx from project activities is expected to be discountable.

This project would remove seven acres of lynx habitat types, as defined by the NRLMD, from proposed road construction. There is no evidence of current or historic lynx presence or movements on the district and considerable opportunity for alternate habitat (such as the Centennial Mountains corridor) for lynx movements or temporary occupation. Thus, removal of seven acres of lynx habitat is expected to be insignificant.

Cumulative Effects

The cumulative effects analysis area for lynx is generally an LAU or linkage area. However, a map of LAUs and linkage areas has not been finalized for the Targhee National Forest. Thus, the analysis area is the east side of the Dubois District (east of I-15). This area is approximately 110,000 acres. It is larger than an LAU, but comparable in size to a linkage area.

Climate change has the potential to decrease snow depth and snow persistence. These two snow condition factors are important for lynx habitat (ILBT 2013). However, climate models analyzed by McKelvey and others suggest that the Greater Yellowstone Area would maintain snow cover, albeit with increased fragmentation (2011).

A review of wildfires in the western U.S. from 1970 to 2003 demonstrated that wildfires are larger, more severe, and the wildfire season has lengthened. These changes are correlated with higher summer temperatures and earlier spring snowmelt of climate change (Westerling et al. 2006). Wildfires can create lynx habitat by producing early-seral lodgepole pine and spruce-fir stands with very high stem densities. Alternatively, wildfires can remove mature, multi-storied stands and destroy lynx habitat.

There is no legal trapping season for Canada lynx in the contiguous United States. However, lynx are very vulnerable to trapping and may become caught in traps set legally for other species. Since 2000, ten lynx in Montana have been documented caught in traps set for other species. At least four of these individuals died from the trapping incident. Even if released alive, a trapped lynx may have trap-related injuries such as dislocations, fractures, and foot-freezing.

Canada lynx are also vulnerable to illegal shooting. In the first 10 years of the Colorado lynx re- introduction project, 14 of 102 lynx mortalities (14 percent) were caused by illegal shooting (ILBT 2013). However, the likelihood of lynx presence in the analysis area is very low, as no lynx have been documented in the analysis area from 1874 to present. Thus, trapping incidents and illegal shooting are unlikely.

Research suggests that roads and highways can create lynx movement impediments and cause direct mortality. Non-resident lynx may be more vulnerable to highway mortality than resident lynx (ILBT 2013). Interstate 15 is the only highway in the analysis area. Overall, the expected level of effects for the project would not contribute to overall cumulative effects in a way which is detrimental to Canada lynx recovery.

Regulatory Framework - Northern Rockies Lynx Management Direction

The contiguous United States population of the Canada lynx (Lynx canadensis) was listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act effective April 24, 2000. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service concluded that the primary threat to lynx was a lack of guidance in federal management plans for the conservation of lynx. The 2007 Northern Rockies Lynx Management Direction (NRLMD) provides management direction for lynx conservation for 18 national forests in Idaho, Montana, Utah, and Wyoming; including the Caribou-Targhee National Forest (USDA 2007). The land management plan amendments for lynx have substantially reduced the influence of anthropogenic impacts to lynx (ILBT 2013). The table below demonstrates how this project meets the NRLMD.

OBJECTIVES, STANDARDS, & GUIDELINES EXPLANATION & DISCUSSION The following objectives, standards, and guidelines The project area contains both lynx habitat and lynx apply to all management projects in lynx habitat in linkage habitat. lynx analysis units (LAUs) and in linkage areas, subject to valid existing rights. They do not apply to wildfire suppression, or to wildland fire use. Objective ALL O1 Habitat connectivity consists of an adequate amount Maintain or restore lynx habitat connectivity in and of vegetation cover arranged in a way that allows between LAUs, and in linkage areas. lynx to move around. Narrow forested mountain ridges or shrub-steppe plateaus may serve as a link between more extensive areas of lynx habitat; wooded riparian areas may provide travel cover across open valley floors (USDA 2007). This project does not remove large areas of vegetation or remove vegetation along riparian corridors. Rather, this project removes vegetation for road construction. The roads would be approximately 30 feet in width. This level of vegetation removal would not prohibit lynx movements. This objective is met. Standard ALL S1 This project does not involve new permanent New or expanded permanent development and development or vegetation management. vegetation management projects must maintain habitat connectivity in an LAU or linkage area. A permanent development is any development that results in a loss of lynx habitat for at least 15 years. Ski trails, parking lots, new permanent roads, structures, campgrounds, and many special use developments would be considered permanent developments. Vegetation management changes the composition and structure of vegetation, using such means as prescribed fire or timber harvest. Guideline ALL G1 This project does not involve highway construction Methods to avoid or reduce effects on lynx should be or re-construction. used when constructing or reconstructing highways or forest highways across federal land. Methods could include fencing, underpasses, or overpasses. Standard LAU S1 This project does not involve a change in LAU Changes in LAU boundaries shall be based on site- boundaries. specific habitat information and after review by the Forest Service Regional Office. The following objectives, standards, and guidelines This project does not involve vegetation apply to vegetation management projects in lynx management, so this section does not apply. No habitat within lynx analysis units (LAUs). With the further management direction is discussed. exception of Objective VEG O3 that specifically concerns wildland fire use, the objectives, standards, and guidelines do not apply to wildfire suppression, wildland fire use, or removal of vegetation for permanent developments such as mineral operations, ski runs, roads, and the like. None of the objectives, standards, or guidelines apply to linkage areas. The following objectives and guidelines apply to This project does not involve grazing management, grazing projects in lynx habitat in lynx analysis units so this section does not apply. No further (LAUs).They do not apply to linkage areas. management direction is discussed. The following objectives and guidelines apply to This project does involve special uses in lynx human use projects, such as special uses (other than habitat, so this section does apply. grazing), recreation management, roads, highways, and mineral and energy development, in lynx habitat in lynx analysis units (LAUs), subject to valid existing rights. They do not apply to vegetation management projects or grazing projects directly. They do not apply to linkage areas. Objective HU O1 Snow-compaction is created by snowmobiles, Maintain (conserve) the lynx’s natural competitive skiers, and animals. Project activities would occur advantage over other predators in deep snow, by from July 15 to early November each year. Thus, discouraging the expansion of snow-compacting project activities would not occur during winter. So, activities in lynx habitat. this project does not create or encourage snow- compacting activities in lynx habitat. This objective is met. Objective HU O2 Project activities will occur behind roads restricted Manage recreational activities to maintain lynx habitat to the public, so this project should have no and connectivity. influence on recreational activities. This objective is met. Objective HU O3 The drill sites in the Mine Ridge area are adjacent to Concentrate activities in existing developed areas, rather an existing area of activity, but proposed actions in than developing new areas in lynx habitat. the Gold Ridge, Prospect Ridge, and Dog Bone Ridge areas are extensions of activity in areas not previously explored on the claim. However, this project does not involve any permanent developments in lynx habitat. This objective is met. Objective HU O4 This project does not involve developed recreation Provide for lynx habitat needs and connectivity when sites. This objective does not apply. developing new or expanding existing developed recreation sites or ski areas. Developed recreation sites include parking lots, buildings, roads, campgrounds, and toilets. Objective HU O5 This project is not expected to impact lynx and lynx Manage human activities, such as special uses, mineral habitat. There has been no reliable observations of and oil and gas exploration and development, and lynx presence on the Dubois District from 1874 to placement of utility transmission corridors, to reduce present. This project will remove up to seven acres impacts on lynx and lynx habitat. of lynx habitat, but given the lack of evidence of lynx presence, it is not believed that this will impact lynx. This objective is met. Objective HU O6 There are no highways in the project area, so this Reduce adverse highway effects on lynx by working objective does not apply. cooperatively with other agencies to provide for lynx movement and habitat connectivity, and to reduce the potential of lynx mortality. Guideline HU G1 This project does not involve ski areas, so this When developing or expanding ski areas, provisions guideline does not apply. should be made for adequately sized inter-trail islands that include coarse woody debris, so winter snowshoe hare habitat is maintained. Winter snowshoe hare habitat contains thousands of young trees per acre that protrude above winter snow levels and develops primarily in the stand initiation, understory re-initiation, and old forest multi-storied structural stages. Guideline HU G2 This project does not involve ski areas, so this When developing or expanding ski areas, lynx foraging guideline does not apply. habitat should be provided consistent with the ski area’s operational needs, especially where lynx habitat occurs as narrow bands of coniferous forest across mountain slopes. Guideline HU G3 This project does not involve recreation Recreation developments and operations should be development and operations, so this guideline does planned in ways that both provide for lynx movement not apply. and maintain the effectiveness of lynx habitat. Guideline HU G4 This project does not involve mineral development, For mineral and energy development sites and facilities, but rather mineral exploration. Snow-compaction is remote monitoring should be encouraged to reduce snow created by snowmobiles, skiers, and animals. compaction. Project activities would occur from July 15 to early November each year. Thus, project activities would not occur during winter. So, this project does not create or encourage snow-compacting activities in lynx habitat. This guideline is met. Guideline HU G5 This project does not involve mineral development, For mineral and energy development sites and facilities but rather mineral exploration. However, that are closed, a reclamation plan that restores (returns reclamation is included in project activities. Roads or re-establishes ecosystems or habitats to their original that have re-vegetated would be repaired, seeded, structure and species composition) lynx habitat should and receive slash and downed woody debris be developed. placement. Roads that have not re-vegetated would be contoured, with soil added, seeded, and receive downed woody debris placement. This guideline is met. Guideline HU G6 This project does not involve upgrading unpaved Methods to avoid or reduce effects on lynx should be roads to maintenance levels 4 or 5, so this guideline used in lynx habitat when upgrading unpaved roads to does not apply. maintenance levels 4 or 5, if the result would be increased traffic speeds and volumes, or a foreseeable contribution to increases in human activity or development. Guideline HU G7 This project does not involve new permanent roads, New permanent roads should not be built on ridge-tops so this guideline does not apply. and saddles, or in areas identified as important for lynx habitat connectivity. New permanent roads and trails should be situated away from forested stringers. Guideline HU G8 Brush removal would occur on up to 12.1 miles of Cutting brush along low-speed (less than 20 miles per roads with low-speeds and low traffic volumes. This hour), low-traffic-volume (less than 100 vehicles per would be done for safety and convenience. day) roads should be done to the minimum level necessary to provide for public safety. Guideline HU G9 This project does construct new roads, but these On new roads built for projects, public motorized use roads are not open to the public. The public will be should be restricted. Effective closures should be restricted by the use of gates. The new roads will be provided in road designs. When the project is over, these reclaimed. This guideline is met. roads should be reclaimed or decommissioned, if not needed for other management objectives. Guideline HU G10 This project does not involve developing or When developing or expanding ski areas and trails, expanding ski areas or trails, so this guideline does consider locating access roads and lift termini to not apply. maintain and provide lynx security habitat, if it has been identified as a need. Lynx security habitat provides visual and acoustic insulation for lynx from human disturbance and allows lynx to move away from intrusion. Guideline HU G11 This project does not involve designating over-the- Designated over-the-snow routes or designated play snow routes or designated play areas, so this areas should not expand outside baseline areas of guideline does not apply. consistent snow compaction, unless designation serves to consolidate use and improve lynx habitat. This may be calculated on an LAU basis, or on a combination of immediately adjacent LAUs. This does not apply inside permitted ski area boundaries, to winter logging, to rerouting trails for public safety, to accessing private inholdings, or to access regulated by Guideline HU G12. Use the same analysis boundaries for all actions subject to this guideline. Areas of consistent snow compaction are those that receive enough snowmobile or ski use that individual tracks are not distinguishable. These areas are usually near snowmobile or ski routes, in openings, parks, and meadows, and near roads or parking areas. Guideline HU G12 This project does not involve winter access for Winter access for non-recreation special uses and mineral exploration, so this guideline does not mineral and energy exploration and development, should apply. Project activities will not occur from be limited to designated routes (open road or trail) or December 21 to March 21, but rather July 15 to designated over-the snow routes (mapped routes). early November. This guideline is met. The following objective, standard, and guidelines The project area contain lynx linkage habitat, so this apply to all projects within linkage areas, subject to section does apply. valid existing rights. Objective LINK O1 This project does not provide the opportunity for In areas of intermingled land ownership, work with conservation projects with intermingled land landowners to pursue conservation easements, habitat ownership, so this objective does not apply. conservation plans, land exchanges, or other solutions to reduce the potential of adverse impacts on lynx and lynx habitat. Standard LINK S1 This project does not involve highway or forest When highway or forest highway construction or highway construction or reconstruction, so this reconstruction is proposed in linkage areas, identify standard does not apply. potential highway crossings. Forest highways are forest roads under the jurisdiction of and maintained by a public authority and open to public travel, designated by an agreement with the Forest Service, state transportation agency, and Federal Highway Administration. Guideline LINK G1 This project does not involve the transfer of Forest NFS lands should be retained in public ownership. Service lands to private ownership, so this guideline does not apply. Guideline LINK G2 This project does not involve livestock grazing in Livestock grazing in shrub-steppe habitats should be shrub-steppe habitats, so this guideline does not managed to contribute to maintaining or achieving a apply. preponderance of mid- or late-seral stages, similar to conditions that would have occurred under historic disturbance regimes. Mid-seral is the successional stage in a plant community that is the midpoint as it moves from bare ground to climax. For riparian areas, it means willows or other shrubs have become established. For shrub-steppe areas, it means shrubs associated with climax are present and increasing in density.

Determination

The determination for Canada lynx for the proposed action is “may affect, not likely to adversely affect.” Project activities are expected to be insignificant and discountable. The following summarizes the rationale for this determination:

. Disturbance to lynx from project activities (road construction, drill operation, and vehicle use) within the 4000-acre action area is not expected to disturb lynx because there has not been any evidence of lynx on the Dubois District from 1874 to present. Further, there is ample alternate habitat and movement zones outside of the action area on the district, including the Centennial Mountains corridor (approximately 40,000 acres). . This project would remove seven acres of lynx habitat types, but the lack of evidence of lynx presence and the available alternate habitat outside of the action area, strongly suggest that the habitat removal will have no impact on lynx. . Cumulative effects do not contribute to direct and indirect effects in a manner which would prevent a determination of insignificant effects.

GRIZZLY BEAR

Life History

Grizzly bear dens are generally located on steep slopes, at high elevations, and are occupied by late September to early December. Grizzly bears in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem (GYE) emerge from dens in early February through early May. Males emerge before females, as females occupy dens for longer periods than males (Haroldson et al. 2002). There are no known grizzly bear dens on the Dubois District.

Upon den emergence in the spring, grizzly bears seek out low elevation meadows, riparian areas, south-facing avalanche chutes, and ungulate winter range. During summer, bears use higher elevation habitats. In the fall, habitat use is more variable and occurs in both low and high elevation areas (USFWS 1993). Overall, grizzly bears are opportunistic omnivores with dietary flexibility and can utilize many different habitat types (Gunther et al. 2014). However, grizzly bear habitat is also defined by human activities (ICST 2016).

As opportunistic omnivores, the dietary breadth of grizzly bears includes 266 species, some of which are experimentally eaten and others which form the foundation of most GYE grizzly bear diets. The items most frequently found in grizzly bear scats are graminoids (59 percent), ants (16 percent), whitebark pine nuts (15 percent), and forbs; predominantly clover and dandelion (10 percent). However, berries, fish, and small mammals are also important (Gunther et al. 2014). Grizzly bears exhibit dietary plasticity and resilience such that they can adapt to new food resources, switch from food resources in decline, and take advantage of highly available food resources (ICST 2016).

The mean age of first female reproduction is 5.8 years, the mean litter size is 2.0, and the reproductive rate is 0.318 female cubs per female per year (Schwartz et al. 2006). Mean annual survival for females is 0.9. The amount of secure habitat (habitat greater than 500 meters from a motorized route) within a grizzly bear’s home range is likely the most important determinant of grizzly bear survival (Schwartz et al. 2010). The population trend for females with cubs is very sensitive to road density (Boulanger and Stenhouse 2014). Most known grizzly bear mortalities are human-caused (85 percent) (Schwartz et al. 2006).

Affected Environment - Population Status

Radio-collar information from the Interagency Grizzly Bear Study Team for 2000 - 2017 was obtained to outline grizzly bear presence on the east side of the Dubois District (east of I-15). Six radio-collared males have been present in this area during six years (2001, 2009, 2010, 2014, 2016, and 2017). Five of these males frequent the district. The radio-location information does not contain the temporal resolution to determine if these grizzly bears are present only in certain seasons or in all seasons of the non-hibernal period (Landenburger et al. 2017).

No radio-collared female grizzly bears have moved naturally to the east side of the Dubois District. However, in 2011, a sub-adult female was transported to the area from the Shoshone National Forest. She did not stay in the area (Landenburger et al. 2017).

All of the radio-locations in the area, except one, are no further west than the East Camas Creek drainage. A lone radio-location is near West Camas Creek immediately south of Steel Creek. While grizzly bears have expanded their distribution in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem (GYE), especially to the north and south, since 2004, there has been no westward expansion of grizzly bears. Thus, it is believed that interstate 15 and adjacent open sagebrush steppe is a dispersal barrier to grizzly bears (Bjornlie et al. 2013).

Overall in the GYE, the grizzly bear has expanded its range, distribution, and numbers: From 1983 to 2002, the annual population growth rate of grizzly bears in the GYE was four to seven percent. From 2002 to 2011, the annual population growth rate was 0.3 to 2.2 percent. While there were 230 to 312 grizzly bears in the GYE in 1975, there were at least 714 grizzly bears in 2014. In 2013, there were an estimated 58 unique females with cubs of the year. This is the highest number recorded. Further, the range and distribution of grizzly bears has tripled since 1975. Forty-one percent of the GYE grizzly bears are present within the GBRZ and 59 percent are present outside of the GBRZ, mostly on federal land. The stabilizing population trend, along with evidence of other density dependent regulation, suggests that the GYE grizzly bear population is approaching carrying capacity (ICST 2016).

Affected Environment - Habitat Status

This project is 27 kilometers west of the grizzly bear recovery zone (GRBZ). Bear analysis units (BAUs) have been identified outside the GBRZ. The units correspond to areas where state agencies currently manage for grizzly bears in the GYE. The BAUs were designed in a manner consistent with bear management units (IGBST 2011). The project area is in the Centennial BAU (199.1 square miles).

The amount of secure habitat (habitat greater than 500 meters from a motorized route) within a grizzly bear’s home range is likely the most important determinant of grizzly bear survival (Schwartz et al. 2010). The Centennial BAU is 50.9 percent secure. Among all of the BAUs on the Caribou-Targhee National Forest, there is a range of 36.7 to 70.0 percent security (IGBST 2015).

Lethal removal from livestock depredation was the most common cause of grizzly bear mortality in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem (Haroldson and Frey 2016). There are 11 active livestock allotments and two closed allotments in the Centennial BAU. Six of the active allotments are sheep allotments. Grizzly bear-livestock conflicts are more likely with sheep than cattle (Knight and Judd 1983). There have been two grizzly bear-livestock conflicts in the Centennial BAU. One occurred in 2000 and one occurred in 2016; both of these were sheep depredations on the Dubois District. The 2016 male was lethally removed (Landenburger et al. 2017). The low level of livestock depredations in the Centennial BAU is not surprising since depredations are positively related to grizzly bear density (Wells 2017).

The second greatest source of grizzly bear mortality in the GYE was from hunter conflicts (Haroldson and Frey 2016). Usually, the bear is killed by a hunter in self-defense, but occasionally, the bear is killed because of mistaken identity. There was one hunter conflict in the Centennial BAU in 2012 on the Ashton-Island Park District. This bear was not killed.

The Centennial BAU has considerable denning habitat in the more rugged areas of the Centennial Mountains. There are two den locations of radio-collared bears in the Centennial Mountains of the BAU. One is on the Ashton-Island Park District and one is 30 meters north of the Dubois District boundary (Landenburger et al. 2017).

The Centennial BAU also has two large areas of whitebark pine forests; one is in the Table Mountain area and the other is in the head of Ching Creek. Both areas are on the Dubois District. One of the six radio-collared males has radio-locations that overlap with the whitebark pine forests in the Ching Creek drainage in the fall. This occurred in 2001. Overall, this information suggests that grizzly bears are not foraging for whitebark pine seeds on the Dubois District (Landenburger et al. 2017).

Direct and Indirect Effects

The direct and indirect effects action area is the area that includes a 500-meter buffer on all of the existing and proposed roads for access to and used for exploration drilling. A 500-meter buffer was selected because areas less than 500 meters from an open or restricted road are non- secure habitat for grizzly bears and the amount of secure habitat in a grizzly bear’s home range may be the most important determinant of a grizzly bear’s survival (Schwartz et al. 2010). This area is calculated to be 6069 acres (9.5 square miles). In addition, this area includes the noise effects zone.

An operating drill rig produces approximately 100 decibels of sound at the rig. In an environment without wind or other noise, at 100 meters the sound intensity would be 70 decibels (equivalent to traffic noise and considered annoying to most persons) or less, at 500 meters would be 50 decibels (equivalent to human conversation) or less, and at 2000 meters would be 40 decibels (equivalent to bird calls). Thus, I conservatively estimate that with wind and other noise sources, a drill rig in operation would create, at most, a noise effects zone with a radius of 500 meters that could potentially be disturbing to grizzly bears. The noise effects zone is 2672 acres (4.2 square miles). With up to three drill rigs in operation at once, there would not be drill rig noise throughout the noise effects zone. Rather, the zone reflects the maximum area that could contain drill rig noise.

Project activities that have the potential to disturb grizzly bears include drill operation, road improvement, road construction, and vehicle trips on restricted and open motorized roads within the action area. Road construction, improvement, and vehicle trips on motorized roads would be intermittent and variable noises and activities; most of these noises would occur during the day. Drill operation noise would be more constant in location and duration. Three drill sites would be in operation simultaneously and would operate 24 hours per day for one or two weeks at each site.

A literature search and review was conducted for the effects of noise on bears and little to no information was located. Any research available was concerned with traffic noise, but these studies are confounded by the associated disturbance of roads, human activity, and vehicles. High road density can cause population trend declines for reproductive female grizzly bears (Boulanger and Stenhous 2014), but this is not because of noise. Overall, it is expected that constant noise from drill rig activity is a potential disturbance to grizzly bears and some habituation may be possible.

While noise-producing activities could disturb grizzly bears, this seems unlikely for the following reasons: There are no radio-collar locations of grizzly bears in the project area. Of the 228 radio-locations of grizzly bears on the east side of the Dubois District, only one is near the project area, along the West Camas Creek drainage and south of Steel Creek. The other 227 radiolocations are not west of the East Camas Creek drainage and consistent with a lack of westward expansion identified by Bjornlie and others (2013). Further, there have been no natural radiolocations of female grizzly bears on the east side of the Dubois District (a sub-adult female was translocated from the Shoshone National Forest, but she did not remain). Females may be considered the most vulnerable members of the grizzly bear population.

Not all grizzly bears are radio-collared, so not all the locations of all grizzly bears are known. In this case, it should be noted that mineral exploration has occurred on the claim in 2017, 2016, 2014, and 2012. While these activities were confined to the Mine Ridge Area, project activities have occurred frequently in the last few years. Thus, this disturbance is not new to the landscape and there has been an opportunity for habituation. Further, it should be noted that there are no important habitats for grizzly bears within the action area, such as denning areas, sites where the four major food resources could be acquired, or other important foraging areas.

Approximately 26 acres of vegetation would be removed to construct restricted roads. This vegetation removal should not impact grizzly bears. Not only is the vegetation removal occurring in an area with no radiolocations of grizzly bears, this vegetation removal is not occurring in any special grizzly bear habitats, such as denning, areas with major food resources, or other important foraging areas. There is considerable alternate habitat for grizzly bears in the Centennial Mountains corridor (approximately 40,000 acres). Indeed, this is where 227 of 228 district grizzly bear radiolocations are present.

Secure habitat would be reduced by 250 acres in the action area for the new roads. There are no grizzly bear radiolocations in the area of reduced secure habitat. In addition, the action area already has a very high road density, so the additional road construction only reduces secure habitat four percent.

Cumulative Effects

The cumulative effects analysis area is the Centennial BAU. A BAU approximates the size of the annual or lifetime range of a female grizzly bear (IGBST 2011). The Centennial BAU includes the east side of the Dubois District (east of I-15) and the western part of the Ashton-Island Park District outside of the Grizzly Bear Recovery Zone. The BAU is 127,424 acres and is 97 percent national forest land.

Less than one percent of the BAU, or 1129 acres, is state land. The primary use is grazing. Approximately two percent, or 2700 acres, of the BAU is private land. Uses include grazing, opal mining, timber harvest, and residences; in order of most to least common use. Grazing can produce conflicts for grizzly bears, opal mining may be a disturbance, timber harvests have positive, negative, and neutral effects for grizzly bears; and residences can provide conflicts from food rewards. However, there have not been any food reward conflicts (Landenburger et al. 2017).

The amount of secure habitat within a grizzly bear’s home range is likely the most important determinant of grizzly bear survival (Schwartz et al. 2010). Some recreationists create illegal OHV routes for access to the forest. These actions decrease secure habitat for grizzly bears. However, education and enforcement to prevent illegal routes and use are provided by forest personnel.

The most common grizzly bear conflict in the Idaho portion of the GYE is a food reward (garbage, pet food, birdfeeders) from subdivisions adjacent to public land (Hendricks 2016). However, there are no subdivisions in the analysis area. Food rewards are possible at campgrounds or campsites in the analysis area, but these have not occurred (Landenburger et al. 2017). In addition, food storage education occurs in the analysis area.

Regulatory Framework

On the Caribou-Targhee National Forest, Occupancy and Use Order #04-15-117 (food storage order) applies to the Ashton-Island Park District and portions of the Dubois and Teton Basin Districts annually from March 1 to December 1. This project is on the Dubois District in the food storage order area. Since personnel will be camping on the claim, the camp will need to abide by the food storage order.

When personnel are asleep at the camp or away, all bear attractants (food, garbage, coolers, toiletries, dish soap, dishes, cutlery, and cookware) will need to be unavailable to bears. A recreational trailer with windows and doors closed, the bed of a pick-up with a closed topper, the cab of a truck with doors and windows closed, a fully-enclosed utility trailer, or certified bear- resistant containers are acceptable for storing attractants. Grills used for cooking should either be secured or burned off for one hour and have drip trays wiped. Propane stoves would need to be burned off and kept clean. Garbage should be routinely removed from the camp. Compliance with the food storage order will be checked during site inspections.

The 1997 revised forest plan for the Targhee National Forest contains management direction for grizzly bears. This direction is based on the best available science on grizzly bears in the 1990s. However, there is no management direction outside of the GBRZ. This project is outside the recovery zone.

The national forests in the GYE follow the management direction in the 2016 Conservation Strategy for the Grizzly Bear in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. The strategy provides the adequate regulatory mechanisms to maintain a recovered grizzly bear population. However, the management direction of the strategy applies only to areas within the GBRZ.

Determination

The determination for grizzly bears for the proposed action is “may affect, not likely to adversely affect.” Project activities are expected to be insignificant. The following summarizes the rationale for this determination:

. Disturbance to grizzly bears from project noise is not expected because there are no radiolocations of grizzly bears within the project area, no important habitats for grizzly bears within the project area, and previous project activities may have provided opportunity for habituation. . Vegetation removal and a decline in secure habitat from road construction is not expected to impact grizzly bears because there are no radiolocations of grizzly bears within the project area, no important habitats for grizzly bears within the area of road construction, and the decrease in secure habitat is minimal (four percent) because the project area already has a relatively high road density. . Cumulative effects do not contribute to direct and indirect effects in a manner which would prevent a determination of insignificant effects.

WOLVERINE

Life History

In the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem (GYE), wolverines occupy areas at or above tree-line in summer and areas below, but centered at tree-line, in the winter (Inman et al. 2012b). Wolverines appear to avoid grass and shrub habitats (Copeland et al. 2007). Wolverine reproductive dens were in alpine habitat at 8200 to 9500 feet on northerly aspects (Inman et al. 2007). Overall, approximately 90 percent of wolverine locations in winter and summer are in areas of persistent spring snow cover (Copeland et al. 2010).

Scat analysis and observation in the GYE reveals that wolverine eat ungulates and smaller prey in approximately equal proportions throughout the year. However, more ungulates (as carrion) are eaten in the winter and more small prey (marmots and red squirrels) are eaten in the summer. In the GYE, primary food items are elk, marmots, and red squirrels; but at least 21 species were found in the wolverine diet (Inman and Packila 2015).

Parturition occurs in February and March, cubs travel with their mother by July, and juveniles commonly disperse the following winter and spring. Specifically, wolverine juveniles disperse at 10 to 15 months of age and movements may last several years, but the primary dispersal period is February and March (Inman et al. 2012a). Dispersal distances are commonly greater than 100 miles (Copeland 1996, Inman et al. 2012b). In the GYE, female and male home range size averaged 163 and 418 square miles, respectively, resulting in a conservative distribution of one wolverine per 100 square miles (Inman et al. 2012b).

Affected Environment – Population Status

Wolverines have been detected in the Centennial Mountains of the Dubois District. A wolverine was photographed at a camera bait station in 1995 and 1996. During aerial surveys in 1999 and 2000, wolverine tracks were detected at two locations in 2000 (Heinemeyer and Copeland 1999, Heinemeyer et al. 2000). Lastly, the Greater Yellowstone Wolverine Program (January 2001 to May 2007) documented a radio-collared wolverine in the Centennial Mountains of the Dubois District in 2003. However, aerial surveys and radio-telemetry research did not identify any wolverine dens on the Dubois District. The Centennial Mountains are 10 to 20 kilometers from the project area.

It is estimated that 250 to 300 wolverines exist in the western United States, with most of these individuals in the Northern Rocky Mountains. Further, it is believed that this population level is not substantially less than historic for the Northern Rocky Mountains (USFWS 2010). Genetic analyses indicate that historic wolverine populations were extirpated by the early 20th century and current populations are descendants of northern immigrants (McKelvey et al. 2014).

Affected Environment – Habitat Status

Wolverine denning habitat may be the most important habitat type for wolverine persistence. Using wolverine denning habitat information from the Greater Yellowstone Wolverine study (aspect, elevation, habitat type) (Inman et al. 2007), we mapped wolverine denning habitat on the Targhee National Forest (USFS, unpublished data). The project area contains 37 acres of potential denning habitat. For comparison, the Centennial Mountains contain 500 times that amount. Because of the small amount of habitat and the presence of more plentiful habitat in the Centennial Mountains, it is not believed that a wolverine would den in the project area. Also, no wolverines have been detected in the project area. Overall, the project area is within low-quality habitat based on snow depth, road density, elevation, terrain ruggedness, forest edge, and conifer cover (Brock et al. 2007).

Using a wolverine habitat suitability model and Circuitscape software, the Centennial Mountains were identified not only as source habitat, but also as an area with one of the highest potentials and quality as a dispersal corridor for wolverines. The Centennial Mountains are part of the Central Linkage Region (CLR). The CLR is a region of high potential for dispersal situated between three large ecosystems predominantly of public land (Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem, North Continental Divide Ecosystem, and the Salmon-Selway Ecosystem) (Inman 2013).

The final results of a study on wolverines and recreation (snowmobiling and skiing) in central Idaho, the Teton Range, and the Centennial and Henrys Lake Mountains are not yet available, but there are preliminary results. Overall, researchers found that wolverines did exist in areas of high recreation. Also, wolverines, including denning females, in high recreation areas had more movements and that this could have energetic effects on wolverines (Heinemeyer and Squires 2013). Further, there is some indication of habituation to recreation. Observations of recreation activity in the Centennial Mountains of the Dubois District demonstrate that over half of the surveyed area has low to no recreation activity (Heinemeyer and Squires 2014) including the area with most of the mapped wolverine denning habitat.

Direct and Indirect Effects

The direct and indirect effects action area is an area that includes all of the existing and proposed roads for access to and used for exploration drilling. The area also includes all of the forest between this system of roads. This area is approximately 4000 acres (six square miles). This may represent the habitat for wolverine that is affected by vegetation removal or human disturbance. Paramount wolverine conservation issues are secure denning habitat and maintenance of dispersal ability (Ruggiero et al. 2007).

Project activities involve motorized equipment (drills, vehicles, heavy equipment), but it is not expected that project activities would disturb wolverines for the following reasons: It is not believed that there are any wolverines in the action area. Wolverines have been detected in the Centennial Mountains, 10 to 20 kilometers north of the project area. Wolverines are long- distance dispersers and there is the potential for a wolverine to disperse through the action area. However, the primary dispersal period for wolverines is February and March (Inman et al. 2012a) and there would be no project activities at this time because project activities occur from July 15 to early November. Also, wolverines have demonstrated an ability to disperse long distances through variable and human-altered terrain crossing multiple transportation corridors (USFWS 2010). Thus, it is expected that wolverines could successfully negotiate a dispersal through the Dubois District during project activities. Further, the Centennial Mountains has been identified as a high-potential, high-quality dispersal corridor for wolverines. Therefore, it is possible that wolverines might preferentially disperse through these mountains as opposed to areas on the district to the south, including the action area.

There are 37 acres of mapped wolverine denning habitat in the action area. This is 500 times less than the amount of mapped wolverine denning habitat in the Centennial Mountains. It is not expected that any wolverines would be using the denning habitat in the action area because it is a small amount, no wolverines have been documented in the action area, and alternate, more plentiful, and potentially higher-quality denning habitat is present in the Centennial Mountains where wolverines have been detected.

Cumulative Effects

The cumulative effects analysis area is the east side of the Dubois District (east of I-15). This area was selected because it contains not only source habitat, but is a high-quality potential dispersal corridor for wolverines. This area is approximately 110,000 acres.

Climate change has the potential to decrease snow depth and snow persistence. Yet, persistence of snow in May is a requisite for successful denning female wolverines (USFWS 2010). However, climate models analyzed by McKelvey and others suggest that the Greater Yellowstone Area would maintain snow cover, albeit with increased fragmentation, to a greater degree than other areas in the western United States (2011).

Snowmobiling, a frequent activity in the analysis area, has increased both in amount of activity and ability to access more remote terrain. There is currently a lack of evidence that this type of recreation is harmful to wolverines, but it could impact wolverines in concert with other stressors (USFWS 2010). Observations of snowmobiling in the Centennial Mountains of the analysis area, which is considered a source habitat for wolverines (Inman 2013), suggest that over half of the surveyed area has low snowmobiling activity (Heinemeyer and Squires 2014). In addition, this area of low snowmobile activity overlaps with most of the mapped denning habitat.

Regulatory Framework

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is re-considering the listing of the wolverine as a threatened species. Climate change was identified as the primary threat to wolverines, but genetic isolation and small population size are also threats. There is no management direction for wolverines.

Determination

The determination for wolverine for the proposed action is “not likely to jeopardize the continued existence” or “may affect, not likely to adversely affect.” Project activities are expected to be discountable. The following summarizes the rationale for this determination:

. Project activities are not expected to disturb wolverines during dispersal movements because activities are not occurring during the primary dispersal period, wolverines are successful at long-distance dispersal through human-altered terrain, and wolverines are more likely to disperse through the Centennial Mountains corridor to the north. . Although the project area has 37 acres of mapped denning habitat, there is no evidence that wolverines are present in the project area, the acreage may not be great enough to be of use to female wolverine, and considerably greater mapped denning habitat is present in the Centennial Mountains where wolverines have been detected. . Cumulative effects do not contribute to direct and indirect effects in a manner which would prevent a determination of insignificant effects.

LITERATURE CITED

Bell, H. et al. 2016. Canada lynx expert elicitation workshop, October 13-15, 2015, Bloomington, Minnesota, final report. Canada Lynx Species Status Assessment Team. 65p. https://www.fws.gov/mountain- prairie/es/species/mammals/lynx/SSA2016/Appendices/2016%2004%2018%20FINAL%20L ynx%20SSA%20EE%20Workshop%20Report%202%20jzeds.pdf

Bjornlie, D.D. et al. 2013. Methods to estimate distribution and range extent of grizzly bears in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 38:182-187. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/wsb.368/citedby

Boulanger, J. and G.B. Stenhouse. 2014. The impact of roads on the demography of grizzly bears in Alberta. PLoS One, 12:e0115535.

Brock, B.L., et. al. 2007. Broad-scale wolverine habitat in the conterminous Rocky Mountain states. Chapter 2 in Greater Yellowstone Wolverine Program Cumulative Report May 2007. Wildlife Conservation Soecity, Ennis, MT. 128 p. http://archive.wcs.org/media/file/GYWP_Report_Abstracts.pdf

Copeland, J.P. 1996. Biology of the wolverine in central Idaho. Master’s Thesis, University of Idaho, Moscow. 152p. http://maps.wildrockies.org/ecosystem_defense/Science_Documents/Copeland_1996.pdf

Copeland, J.P., et. al. 2007. Seasonal habitat associations of the wolverine in central Idaho. The Journal of Wildlife Management. 71:2201-2212. http://www.treesearch.fs.fed.us/pubs/28928

Copeland, J.P., et. al. 2010. The bioclimatic envelope of the wolverine (Gulo gulo): Do climatic constraints limit its geographic distribution? Canadian Journal of Zoology. 88: 233-246. http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/pubs_other/rmrs_2010_copeland_j001.pdf

Ellsworth, E. and T.D. Reynolds. 2006. Snowshoe Hare (Lepus americanus): a technical conservation assessment. USDA Forest Service. http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/snowshoehare.pdf .

Gunther, K.A. et al. 2014. Dietary breadth of grizzly bears in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. Ursus, 25:60-72. http://www.bearbiology.com/fileadmin/tpl/Downloads/URSUS/Vol_25_1_/Gunther_et_al_2 014_Ursus.pdf

Haroldson, M.A., et. al. 2002. Grizzly bear denning chronology and movements in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. Ursus, 13:29-37. http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/3873184

Haroldson, M.A. and K.L. Frey. 2016. Documented grizzly bear mortalities in the GYE and estimated percent mortality for the demographic monitoring area. In F.T. Van Manen, M.A. Haroldson, and B.E. Karabensh (editors). Yellowstone grizzly bear investigations: annual report of the Interagency Grizzly Bear Study Team. U.S. Geological Surveys, Bozeman, Montana. https://www.usgs.gov/centers/norock/science/igbst-annual-reports?qt- science_center_objects=1#qt-science_center_objects

Heinemeyer, K. S. and J. P. Copeland. 1999. Wolverine denning habitat and surveys on the Targhee National Forest 1998-1999, annual report. University of California, Santa Cruz, CA. 13p. http://gis.ucsc.edu/Projects/gulo.htm

Heinemeyer, K.S., B.C. Aber, and D.F. Doak. 2001. Aerial surveys for wolverine presence and potential winter recreation impacts to predicted wolverine denning habitats in the southwestern Yellowstone Ecosystem. University of California, Santa Cruz, CA. 33p. http://gis.ucsc.edu/Projects/gulo.htm

Heinemeyer, K.S. and J.R. Squires. 2013. Wolverine-winter recreation research project: Investigating the interactions between wolverines and winter recreation (progress report). Round River Conservation Studies, Salt Lake City, Utah. http://www.roundriver.org/wolverine/wolverine-maps-reports-and-publications/

Heinemeyer, K.S. and J.R. Squires. 2014. Wolverine-winter recreation research project: Investigating the interactions between wolverines and winter recreation (progress report). Round River Conservation Studies, Salt Lake City, Utah. http://www.roundriver.org/wolverine/wolverine-maps-reports-and-publications/

Hendricks, C. 2016. Human-grizzly bear conflicts in Idaho. In Yellowstone grizzly bear investigations: annual report of the Interagency Grizzly Bear Study Team 2015. U.S. Geological Survey, Bozeman, Montana. https://www.usgs.gov/centers/norock/science/igbst- annual-reports?qt-science_center_objects=1#qt-science_center_objects

Hodges, K. E., L.S. Mills, and K.M. Murphy. 2009. Distribution and abundance of snowshoe hares in Yellowstone National Park. Journal of Mammalogy, 90:870-878. https://research.cnr.ncsu.edu/sites/millslab/wp- content/uploads/sites/13/2015/01/HodgesDist2009.pdf

Inman, R.M., et. al. 2007. Wolverine reproductive rates and maternal habitat in Greater Yellowstone. Chapter 4 in Greater Yellowstone Wolverine Program Cumulative Report May 2007. Wildlife Conservation Society, Ennis, MT. 128 p. http://archive.wcs.org/media/file/GYWP_Report_Abstracts.pdf

Inman, R.M., et. al. 2012a. The wolverine’s niche: linking reproductive chronology, caching, competition, and climate. Journal of Mammalogy, 93:634-644. http://www.asmjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1644/11-MAMM-A-319.1

Inman, R.M., et. al. 2012b. Spatial ecology of wolverines at the southern periphery of distribution. The Journal of Wildlife Management, 76:778-792. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jwmg.289/pdf

Inman, R.M. 2013. Wolverine ecology and conservation in the western United States. Swedish University of Agricultural Science, Uppsala, Sweden. https://pub.epsilon.slu.se/9368/

Inman, R.M. and M.L. Packila. 2015. Wolverine (Gulo gulo) food habits in Greater Yellowstone. The American Midland Naturalist, 173:156-161. http://www.bioone.org/doi/abs/10.1674/0003-0031-173.1.156

Interagency Conservation Strategy Team (ICST). 20016. Conservation strategy for the grizzly bear in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem, 133p. http://igbconline.org/wp- content/uploads/2016/03/161216_Final-Conservation-Strategy_signed.pdf

Interagency Grizzly Bear Study Team (IGBST). 2011. Yellowstone grizzly bear investigations: annual report of the Interagency Grizzly Bear Study Team 2010. U.S. Geological Survey, Bozeman, Montana. https://www.usgs.gov/centers/norock/science/igbst-annual-reports?qt- science_center_objects=1#qt-science_center_objects

Interagency Grizzly Bear Study Team (IGBST). 2015. Yellowstone grizzly bear investigations: annual report of the Interagency Grizzly Bear Study Team 2014. U.S. Geological Survey, Bozeman, Montana. https://www.usgs.gov/centers/norock/science/igbst-annual-reports?qt- science_center_objects=1#qt-science_center_objects

Interagency Grizzly Bear Study Team (IGBST). 2016. Yellowstone grizzly bear investigations: annual report of the Interagency Grizzly Bear Study Team 2015. U.S. Geological Survey, Bozeman, Montana. https://www.usgs.gov/centers/norock/science/igbst-annual-reports?qt- science_center_objects=1#qt-science_center_objects

Interagency Lynx Biology Team (ILBT). 2013. Canada lynx conservation assessment and strategy. Third edition. USDA Forest Service, USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, USDI Bureau of Land Management, and USDI National Park Service. Forest Service Publication R-13-19, Missoula, Montana. 128p. http://www.fs.fed.us/biology/resources/pubs/wildlife/LCAS_revisedAugust2013.pdf

Knight, R.R. and S.L. Judd. 1983. Grizzly bears that kill livestock. Bears: Their biology and management, 5:186-190. http://www.bearbiology.com/fileadmin/tpl/Downloads/URSUS/Vol_5/Knight___Judd_Vol_ 5.pdf

Landenburger, L., Haroldson, M.A., and F.T. van Manen. 2017. Summary of verified grizzly bear occurrences in the eastern Dubois District, Caribou-Targhee National Forest. U.S. Geological Survey, Interagency Grizzly Bear Study Team, Bozeman, Montana. Email attachment to S. Derusseau, Caribou-Targhee National Forest, November 16, 2017.

Maletzke, B.T., et. al. 2008. Habitat conditions associated with lynx hunting behavior during winter in northern Washington. The Journal of Wildlife Management, 72:1472-1478. http://nrs.wsu.edu/Research/Carnivore/pdf/Maletzke.pdf

McKelvey, K.S. et al. 2011. Climate change predicted to shift wolverine distributions, connectivity, and dispersal corridors. Ecological Applications, 21:2882-2897. https://www.fs.fed.us/rm/pubs_other/rmrs_2011_mckelvey_k001.pdf

McKelvey, K.S. et al. 2014. Recovery of wolverines in the western United States: Recent extirpation and recolonization or range retraction and expansion. The Journal of Wildlife Management, 78:325-334. https://www.fs.usda.gov/treesearch/pubs/47456

Murphy, K.M. et al. 2006. Distribution of Canada lynx in Yellowstone National Park. Northwest Science, 80:199-206.

Ruediger, B., et. al. 2000. Canada lynx conservation assessment and strategy. USDA Forest Service, USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, USDI Bureau of Land Management, and USDI National Park Service. Forest Service Publication #R1-00-53, Missoula, MT. 142 p. http://www.fs.fed.us/r1/wildlife/carnivore/Lynx/lcas.pdf

Schwartz, C.C., et. al. 2006. Temporal, spatial, and environmental influences on the demographics of grizzly bears in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. Wildlife Monographs, 161:1-68. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.2193/0084- 0173(2006)161[1:TSAEIO]2.0.CO;2/pdf

Schwartz, C.C., M.A. Haroldson, and G.C. White. 2010. Hazards affecting grizzly bear survival in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. Journal of Wildlife Management, 74:654-667. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.2193/2009-206/pdf

Shenk, T. 2009. Wildlife Research Report – Post-release monitoring of lynx reintroduced to Colorado. Colorado Division of Wildlife, Fort Collins, CO. 55p. http://wildlife.state.co.us/NR/rdonlyres/AD9B39DC-79B8-4E2E-9499- 4E120FA41751/0/LynxAnnualReport20082009.pdf

Squires, J.R., L.F. Ruggiero, J.A. Kolbe, N.J. DeCesare. 2006. Lynx ecology in the intermountain West. USFS Rocky Mountain Research Station, Missoula, MT. 51p. http://www.rmrs.nau.edu/publications/Lynx_Research_Program_Summary7_19_06_Final/L ynx_Research_Program_Summary7_19_06_Final.pdf

USDA Forest Service (USDA). 1999. Targhee National Forest – Ecological unit inventory.

USDA Forest Service (USDA). 2007. Final Environmental Impact Statement – Northern Rockies Lynx Management Direction. National Forests in Montana, and parts of Idaho, Wyoming, and Utah. Missoula, MT. http://www.fs.fed.us/r1/planning/lynx/documents.htm

US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1993. Grizzly bear recovery plan. Missoula, MT. 181p. http://www.fws.gov/mountain- prairie/species/mammals/grizzly/Grizzly_bear_recovery_plan.pdf

US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2005. Canada lynx recovery outline. Montana Field Office, Helena, MT. http://www.fws.gov/mountain- prairie/species/mammals/lynx/final%20lynx%20RecoveryOutline9-05.pdf

US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2010. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; 12-month finding on a petition to list the North American wolverine as endangered or threatened, proposed rule. Federal Register, 75(239):78030-78061. https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2010/12/14/2010-30573/endangered-and- threatened-wildlife-and-plants-12-month-finding-on-a-petition-to-list-the-north

US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2014. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; revised designation of critical habitat for the contiguous United States distinct population segment of the Canada lynx and revised distinct population segment boundary; final rule. Federal Register, 79(177):54782-54846. https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2014/09/12/2014-21013/endangered-and- threatened-wildlife-and-plants-revised-designation-of-critical-habitat-for-the

Wells, S.L. 2017. Livestock depredation by grizzly bears on Forest Service grazing allotments in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. Montana State University, Bozeman, Montana.